Fact check: Democrat gerrymandered states

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal that both Democratic and Republican states engage in gerrymandering, though the scale and impact differ significantly. Illinois is specifically cited as an example of a Democratic state that has gerrymandered its maps to favor the Democratic party ^[1]. Governor JB Pritzker has left the door open to redistricting the state's congressional map, potentially to benefit Democrats ^[2].

However, the data shows that Republican gerrymandering has a much larger impact on the electoral landscape. Republicans have gained approximately 16 seats due to gerrymandering, while the extra Democratic or Democratic-leaning seats from Democratic-drawn maps are less than a third of the extra GOP or GOP-leaning seats in states with Republican-favoring maps ^[3]. The analyses indicate that only 1 in 10 districts will be competitive in the 2024 election due to gerrymandering overall ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement significantly omits the broader context of Republican gerrymandering dominance. While Democrats have engaged in gerrymandering in states like Illinois and potentially California, Republicans have been far more aggressive and successful in this practice ^[3].

The analyses reveal that Democrats have pledged to respond in kind by playing dirty in states where they could re-draw the maps, like California, particularly in response to Texas Republicans' recent move to redraw the state's congressional districts in the middle of the decade ^[5]. This suggests a reactive rather than proactive approach from Democrats in many cases.

Political parties and their leadership benefit from promoting narratives that focus solely on the opposing party's gerrymandering while downplaying their own. Republican leaders would benefit from highlighting Democratic gerrymandering to deflect attention from their more extensive redistricting advantages, while Democratic leaders would benefit from emphasizing Republican gerrymandering to justify their own redistricting efforts.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement presents a misleading and incomplete picture by focusing exclusively on Democratic gerrymandering without acknowledging the significantly larger scale of Republican gerrymandering. This creates a false equivalency that distorts the actual impact on electoral competitiveness.

The statement implies that Democratic gerrymandering is the primary concern, when the analyses show that Republican-gerrymandered states have created far more skewed districts and gained substantially more seats ^[3]. By omitting this crucial context, the statement could mislead readers into believing that Democratic gerrymandering is either more prevalent or more impactful than Republican efforts.

The framing also ignores the reactive nature of some Democratic gerrymandering efforts, such as California's response to Texas Republican redistricting ^[6], which provides important context for understanding the current gerrymandering landscape as potentially part of an escalating partisan arms race ^[5].